class=”text”> The Google logo in an office. (GTres)
citizen in a newspaper published in 1998, two notices of auction of properties related to a seizure for debt to Social Security. The man manages to solve the embargo and the matter is forgotten. However, twelve years later discovers that entering your name in Google, his name still appears linked to that case , which can cause harm to your reputation. Analog Reality has forgotten his past, digital reality, no. What can you do about it?
citizen decided to resort to the Spanish Agency for Data Protection (AEPD). He was not alone. In April 2011, the AEPD made Google an unprecedented request: that would eliminate the links to all content related 90 people that had claimed his right to be forgotten judicially, individuals seeking to stop name appear in the popular search engine associated with a misdemeanor or felony in the past, to a specific event that do not want to remember or a group or association that no longer belong, among many other cases.
class=”quote_new”> is an opinion of the attorney, a non-binding opinion that functions as a recommendation On Tuesday, the Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union, Niilo Jääskinen has put paid to the hopes of all those citizens to ensure that the EU directive on data protection provides no generalized right to be forgotten. Request Internet search engines to eliminate legitimate and legal information has been made public, underscores Jääskinen, “would bring an interference with freedom of expression editor web page” and “amount to a censorship of content posted by a particular. “
AEPD ARCO rights advocates, according to which the citizen has the right to “access, rectification, cancellation and opposition to the publication of certain personal data.” But the rights of rectification, erasure and blocking of data specified in the policy concern cases where data are incomplete or inaccurate , which according to general counsel not the case in this matter.
The Internet giant is satisfied with the conclusions, but remember that this is only a preliminary comment. “It’s really an opinion of counsel, a non-binding which works as a recommendation. Still need to have a statement” , says the director of the Legal Department of Google Spain, María González Ordóñez, 20minutes . “The ruling is not final, but crucial,” he adds.
Ordonez also notes that this ruling, they expect to arrive towards the end of the year, could be decisive in regulating the right to oblivion in Europe, an issue that is being debated right now in Brussels and will be included in the forthcoming reform of data protection rules in the EU , which aims to adapt to the changes brought about by new technologies (current EU legislation dating back to 1995).
However, some believe that this new legislation will not change practically nothing. The lawyer Rafael Gimeno-Bayon, computer law expert and one of those responsible for ONline Reputation Legal, said “until expiration is set some information in the digital environment, which is something that is not going to do the right oblivion not work. ” “I call it digital condemnation. A means online can catch the prosecution information and publish it true about someone. Though such person has been acquitted, can not require the means to remove information, as this is not no truth, but it does not even have the right to publish the news of the acquittal to the same visibility as the other, “argues Gimeno-Bayon.
The expert, who is not considered a “radical right to be forgotten” qualifies it is a right that is not absolute. “I do not think you have to remove all the old information. Societies advance with memory. But I would have to establish a law applicable to very specific cases bleeding, “he says.
AEPD emphasizes that the Advocate General are not binding and indicates that while many points agrees with his interpretation, there are others that disagree. Despite what Jääskinen argues, the agency said that “resolutions protects citizens requesting an end to the spread of personal data not interfere in any way on the freedoms of expression and information “.
Privacy
not advocate the elimination of all uncomfortable information for citizens, do not even ask that search engines stop displaying it. Would be strange if a fact or news remained in the archive of the print edition of a newspaper but were eliminated in the digital edition, even taking into account the different difficulty to access one to the other. The requesting agency adheres to a set of conditions.
class=”quote_new”> AEPD in any case require modification or alteration of the original sources “guardianship applications are denied information whenever current deal or that have some degree of relevance or public interest. only be granted when, after due analysis of the case, we conclude that it is personal information, as well as being obsolete, lack any relevance or public interest and its widespread dissemination is causing injury to the rights of the applicant “they explain.further point out that “in no case require modification or alteration of the original sources, but only for an end to their broadcast through the search engines.”
However, Google relies on the opinion of Jääskinen and maintains that “you can not put all the burden of responsibility on the search engines.” “If a person wants his name disappears from a publication, must resort to the editor responsible for it , not the search engine.’s The publisher who must remove the information or to ask a search engine to stop index that page, “explains Gonzalez Ordonez. “If the information published is lawful and is true, does not infringe the right to honor and, therefore, would eliminate a form of censorship. If the information is defamatory and a court asked to leave, we will do it without hesitation,” says .
Besides these cases of right to oblivion, the EU discusses other equally complex as related information published social networks and on websites of photographs or videos, which cover the tracks Digital is sometimes very difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment